OH OH, don't forget to be politically correct.

[Amianthus]

Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be.  That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.

Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.

[Michael Tee]

<<Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.>>

Of course it does.  It mandates the choice of the least risky alternative in the absence of any sound medical contra-indication.  If one-eye procedures carry less risk of harm than two-eye procedures, the Oath binds the doctor to choose them.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be.  That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.

Exactly. Which is why the Hippocratic Oath does not apply.

=================================================
The Hippocratic Oath is a professional agreement.

The waiver is a legal agreement.

I don't think the Oath has a lot of legal standing, althoiugh legal precedent probably gives it some, but the waiver is required by malpractice insurance issuers.

[Michael Tee]

The waiver is practical proof that in the real world, medical error does exist and that no doctor "knows" with absolute certainty that any procedure will or will not result  in unexpected harm.

There is no waiver in the world that can absolve the doctor of his Hippocratic Oath.  The waiver is merely intended to stop the patient from suing.

[crocat]

<<Stupid argument; if he can do harm to one eye, he shouldn't operate on either.>>

Stupid rebuttal.  Only the omniscient physician would know before he begins what the end result will be.  That's why the risks are explained to the patient beforehand, and that's why you sign a waiver before the operation confirming that you were told of the risks and absolving the physician if anything goes wrong.

<<HA  HA.... my husband had lasik surgery on both eyes.... in Canada... of course they screwed up both eyes....>>

Nobody's got a monopoly on medical error, cro.  I'm sorry your husband's eyes were fucked up,  sorrier still that it was a Canadian doctor who fucked them up but most ophthalmologists, even Canadians, manage to get their patients through a Lasik procedure without fucking up anything.  Incidentally, if the Lasik were for purely cosmetic reasons, it was not covered under our OHIP (governmental health plan.)  So your husband was probably going to some for-profit clinic.

<<I think you guys need to understand that the oath means.... KNOWINGLY doing harm.>>

You must have a pretty elastic definition of "knowingly" - - if a doctor knows that it's safer to do one eye at a time, and chooses instead the risker alternative of both at once for no better reason than the patient's impatience, then IMHO, he's knowingly caused whatever harm resulted.

sometimes I don't know why I even respond to you.   All I get is that I am stupid.   I think that if you go back over time you will see that my opinions can be changed by reason.  You on the other hand are unbending in any direction.  You insult and denigrate anyone that has worked hard for a living and give those that have not a pass.  If I relate a personal experience to you as an example you immediately put any validity of my point on that fact that I am boo hooing and that my emotions won't allow my to be rational.

Suffice it to say. 
 1. I am not stupid - in fact quite the opposite;
and
2. I am not prone to outbursts of uncontrolled emotion.  Far from it - you could wire me up and see little change in my blood pressure or pulse when I am answering here.

Cro

[Xavier_Onassis]

Incidentally, if the Lasik were for purely cosmetic reasons, it was not covered under our OHIP (governmental health plan.)
==================================================
What would a "purely cosmetic reason" for Lasik be?
Isn't it always to make it possible to see better without glasses or contacts?

[Michael Tee]

<<sometimes I don't know why I even respond to you.   All I get is that I am stupid.   I think that if you go back over time you will see that my opinions can be changed by reason.  You on the other hand are unbending in any direction.  >>

I have a lot of respect for you as a person and as far as I know I DID NOT INSULT YOU.  If I did, you'll have to show me where, because it was purely unintentional.  The "stupid argument -stupid rebuttal" was an exchange between Ami and I - - did you mistake my counter-insult to Ami as being directed at you?

<<You insult and denigrate anyone that has worked hard for a living >>

That is patently not true.  You'll have to give me an example of that.  I would be ashamed and embarrassed to put down anyone who had to work hard for a living.  The whole idea behind the Communist Party is love of the working class and power to the people, which means the working people.

<< . . .   and give those that have not a pass.  >>

You mentioned crackheads and alcoholics and I pointed to the socio-economic causes of their condition.  The money that could have prevented their ruination is still locked up in the accounts of the rich of our two countries.

<<If I relate a personal experience to you as an example you immediately put any validity of my point on that fact that I am boo hooing . . . >>

Yes, in that particular case, you were using a minor inconvenience as a reason to disband a system that means the difference between health and sickness or even life and death for millions.

<< . . . and that my emotions won't allow my to be rational.>>

I never even considered the issue.  You'll have to show me where I said anything like that.

<<Suffice it to say.
 1. I am not stupid - in fact quite the opposite;>>

I defy you to show me where I ever said or implied otherwise.

<<2. I am not prone to outbursts of uncontrolled emotion.  >>

That, IMHO, is nothing to boast about (unless you're applying for a job as an airline pilot, surgeon or President of the U.S.A.)  but I don't recall ever putting it in issue.  It's certainly none of my business whether you are or not.

<<Far from it - you could wire me up and see little change in my blood pressure or pulse when I am answering here.>>

? ? ? ? ?  Why would I?  What the hell has that got to do with anything?

I'm really sorry to be the target of this outburst.  I always respected you (still do) and have no idea what brought this on.  I've got a feeling that you took an exchange ("Stupid argument" - "Stupid response") which was entirely between Ami and I, and somehow misperceived that as directed at you.  Otherwise, I am totally mystified.

[Amianthus]

The "stupid argument -stupid rebuttal" was an exchange between Ami and I - - did you mistake my counter-insult to Ami as being directed at you?

You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?

[Michael Tee]

<<You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?>>

No, it's not an insult, I should have chosen my words more carefully.  In the context of cro's post, I was concerned that she took my words "stupid rebuttal" as an insult directed at her.  So I was just trying to give her some background, explain to her that I had been responding to you in the same tone that you had used to me.  I don't consider either one of them ("stupid answer" "stupid rebuttal") to be insults. 

Since my point was not whether or not I had been insulted by you, I wasn't so careful in describing the exchange, so now I guess I got YOU piling on after cro.  What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet?  Holy shit guys, honest, I seek no wider war.  Just please let me and cro straighten this out between us.

[Amianthus]

I just wanted to clarify so that I don't insult you unintentionally.

[Cynthia]

<<You consider my saying that your argument is stupid to be an insult? Sensitive, aren't we?>>

No, it's not an insult, I should have chosen my words more carefully.  In the context of cro's post, I was concerned that she took my words "stupid rebuttal" as an insult directed at her.  So I was just trying to give her some background, explain to her that I had been responding to you in the same tone that you had used to me.  I don't consider either one of them ("stupid answer" "stupid rebuttal") to be insults. 

Since my point was not whether or not I had been insulted by you, I wasn't so careful in describing the exchange, so now I guess I got YOU piling on after cro.  What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet?  Holy shit guys, honest, I seek no wider war.  Just please let me and cro straighten this out between us.

What's next, sirs is going to jump in with both feet?

Someone out there understands my pain! LOL

[sirs]

Is that so.     

[Cynthia]

Is that so.     

Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.

Now that I read that someone has said that you come in and "jump" on another person when the issue isn't about you.....I can relate. You tend to come in out of the blue and make YOUR own point,.......especially when it's with BT...Then you throw salt on the wound.

Just an observation, Sirs.

You can really be a pain in the arssss sometimes. You refuse to see that. Instead you come back with a counter attack making it seem as though the other person is so wrong.

You don't stay out of the mess when it's not your mess.

But, hey, you're still a good egg.

[sirs]

Is that so.     

Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.

That's unfortunate you feel that way, especially when I so often see you "jump" on me, while giving certain other posters, who provide far more in irrelevent insulting and snide commentary a pass....simply becasue they happen to be a teacher.  But hey, that's your decision

[Cynthia]

Is that so.     

Well, Hon, honestly, yes, it's very true.

That's unfortunate you feel that way, especially when I so often see you "jump" on me, while giving certain other posters, who provide far more in irrelevent insulting and snide commentary a pass....simply becasue they happen to be a teacher.  But hey, that's your decision

Hey, I like you, Sirs...but you do tend to jump in on other's debate gate without the key.

But, I also respect you....such is the very essence of the gate.

Cindy